monitor_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: first execution is baseline (record-only), reminders start afterwards; notifications via webhook/email, logging otherwise. It also explains default assignee behavior. Missing details like persistence or immediate activation, but these are less critical for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. It is reasonably concise but includes some redundant phrasing; still, every element adds value for a 9-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations) and that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers essential aspects: parameters, behavior, prerequisites, and suggestions. It doesn't explicitly address error cases or permissions, but these are not critical for initial use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains fuzzy_responser, dev/test_responser_id, timeout_alert/hours, new_defect_alert, and interval_minutes, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a defect monitoring task with periodic polling and reminders. The verb 'add' is explicit, and it's distinguished from sibling tools like monitor_run_once, monitor_list, etc. by naming what it does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a concrete usage suggestion: '建议先 monitor_run_once 建立基线' (recommends running monitor_run_once first to establish baseline). It also explains how to specify a responser using get_users. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly with all siblings, so it falls short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.